Snape's motivation (was:Re: Hermione and her time -turner and a Snape theory)

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 58469

JOdel:

>I've begun to wonder; if Black and Potter were their generation's Fred and 
>George whether Snape may have been their Percy. And if that parallel goes 
>more than skin deep, Dumbledore may have been very glad for a chance to have 

>a detailed private talk with this particular clever, prickly, upright 
>Slytherin boy. After all, he knew he needed eyes and ears in the enemy camp.
>
>The Snape/Dumbledore "deal" may have been struck all the way back then, and 
>Snape has *always* been on the "right" side. The testimony at Karkaroff's 
>trial was damage control, not the whole truth.



I suppose you could be right. But I'll be very disappointed if you are! ;-)

Snape is arguably JKR's most intriguing, possibly her most three-dimesnional 
character. He poses so many questions. Why does Dumbledore trust him? Why did 
he leave the DE's? Why did he *join* the DEs in the first place? Why does he 
hate Harry at the same time as apparently trying to protect him?

You are right. All these questions could be answered by Snape and Dumbledore 
having cut a deal whilst Snape was still a student, by Snape having been 
constantly in Dumbledore's service, his Death Eating a mere sham.

JKR has spent the best part of four books building Snape up as an enimagtic 
character, one whom at first we are taught to mistrust, one whom we are always 
supposed to dislike, whose motivation is far from clear, whom only as Book 
Four draws to its conclusion are we told is truly on Dumbledore's side and whose 
mysterious past has a little light thrown on it.

It is only at this point where that she really challenges us with those 
questions about his past. About why he became a Death Eater. About why his 
allegiance changed. Having got more than half way through the series, I shall be so 
disappointed if we suddenly find out that it was all a sham, that Snape *wasn't* 
a fully paid-up Death Eater, that he *isn't* angst ridden and tortured about 
the things he has done in the past, that he didn't change allegiance, but was 
merely a clever trickster who fooled Lord Voldemort into believing he 
supported him. I shall be so disappointed if I find out that he is only loyal to 
Dumbledore because of some deal, not because he believes in his cause. It would be 
too simple and glib an explanation for my taste.

I guess he would still be a complex character, but not as I like to picture 
him. His position would be truly pathetic: the Slytherin and would-be DE who is 
a traitor to all he believes in for reasons of self-preservation, rather than 
the somewhat heroic character who sacrifices the life he might be 
temperamentally more suited for in the cause of principle.

I should feel cheated. And I believe the Potterverse would be deprived of a 
character who makes us question our conventional ideas of right and wrong, a 
theme which I feel sure JKR is consciously developing. In Snape we have a "bad" 
man who apparently willingly acts in the cause of right. If it is a sham, if 
he does right only out of obligation, then there is no moral lesson to be 
learned from him. JKR has stated that these are moral books. On that basis, I 
really hope you're wrong on this one! ;-)

~Eloise
    
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]